Charming the Hearts of Men

It's 1963. Grace Gordon (Anna Friel) has come home to the deep south after the death of her powerful judge father. She finds that the family fortune had all been spent on her. With no money left, her only option is to remarry to someone rich. Her sights eventually settles on the Congressman (Kelsey Grammer). Meanwhile, the hated civil rights movement has come to the southern community.

The movie starts with the hammer blow "useless female" declaration. The next move should be showing Grace as a smart modern woman. Instead, the movie only re-enforces the useless female idea by having her ignore her bills and being completely clueless about her finances. She is utterly flighty and every bit the useless female. It is probably the exact opposite of what this movie needs. It's a bad start.

Over time, the movie does put in little bits of the civil rights movement. The general concept changes from a rom-com movie to a social justice movie. It functions better as such especially since the romance between Grace and the Congressman is never going to take off. That's another issue. The Congressman has no name. It seems like a fictional movie which is too scared to put in a real name. I don't know why they couldn't put in a fictional name.

I have heard about CHARMING THE HEARTS OF MEN through all of 2021 because it has Sean Astin (an actor I follow and usually like) in the cast but actually hadn't a chance of seeing it until last January, and didn't have that many expectations for it. When I saw it last January I simply liked it, nothing more.

The movie is set in 1964 during the Civil Rights movement when Grace Gordon (Anna Friel) returns in her home town in the South and discovers that while her options are limited, discrimination towards black people is plentiful and with the help of a congressman (Kelsey Grammer) she ends up inspiring historic legislation that allows opportunities and protections that were never given to women.

While the plot was a bit hard to understand and it was saved by the last 30 minutes, the acting is generally good and the settings nice. It was also nice seeing the Southern black people's lifestyle, with their singing and dancing moments and the like. Not certainly a must see but just a time passer and nothing more (well, not all movies are meant to be masterpieces, right?)

Fantastic acting, well produced film, excellent perspective. Appreciate you telling history from this vantage point. Must see!

This is missing an open goal. Movies on racism in the south aren't a hard begining. But this movie takes that basic premise and slowly goes backwards with a slow boring story. Thankfully the civil rights movement didn't follow the same trajectory . A terrible waste of time and talent.

Oh, how this could have been a grander film, on the level of The Help. But it isn't. That doesn't mean it's not without its charms. Lordy, does Grammar soar here in what he does like few others can -- character work with both whimsy and gravitas.

I am a product of the 60s South. Notice I did not say "proud" product. But I am still interested in well-told tales of the 60s South, and some come close. The Help came close. And this one comes even closer.

Hollywood has been flogging tales of the South since the first feature silent films. All kinds of stories. This one is a story about rights, but not merely race, but of sex. It tells that story in the lazy, slow way that the rural South did things. It's not punchy, it's not edgy, it's not delightfully written. It's langorously written. That makes for a bit duller entertainment, but it can also make for something that touches hearts.

This touches hearts, if you let it. It's not unforgettable, but it's also not disposable. It's in the middle.

Its faults are that it dances around themes a bit too much, tries to touch too many bases, and its resolution is a bit too saccharine, and a lot too easy. That said, it makes you feel good. And I bet that's what it was aiming for.